It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

VOTE... ATS Policy of NO Wikipedia Sources permited on ATS ( yes or no )

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Yes, allow Wikipedia, but acknowledge as source.




posted on May, 28 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
no to wikipedia



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I can not even believe this subject is being discussed on this site.

Why don't we also ban any mainstream media as a source.

It is apparent that it is manipulated by external sources.

It is my belief that this site should ban any thread that has a question as its thread starter.

The person starting the thread should know how to turn a question into a statement,and then follow up his statement with his opinion for a discussion.

That is what a forum was initially designed to be.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I think wiki is great, as a starting point to research at least. Using it as the end all be all like some people do should be frowned upon.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Until we get rid of the Sorcha Faal threads,

NO I don't think Wikipedia should be "banned" from ATS...



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   


Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy".
edit on 28-5-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy".

OK, I'm impressed. I went and hit random, got "List of Phi Delta Theta chapters", and was at philosophy in 21 clicks.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
If you are going to prohibit wikipedia citations, then you also have to stop citing crack-pot sites like naturalnews.com as well as anything that isn't a primary literature source. One of my pet peeves is when people quote media articles as their prime source for scientific information without even looking for the primary source - i.e. the scientific article itself.

Personally, I don't have a problem with wikipedia articles, so long as their information is verifiable and has been checked out by the person citing it. For fringe topics, I find it's actually more informative to read the discussion page of the wiki article than it is to read the article itself, since it's usually full of intelligent debate from both sides of the fence.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
OK, I'm impressed. I went and hit random, got "List of Phi Delta Theta chapters", and was at philosophy in 21 clicks.


Yup, it all comes down to Philosophy.



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


One of my favourite procrastination games was '6 clicks to Jesus'. Go to a random wiki page and try get to Jesus in 6 clicks or under. It was surprisingly easy.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
NO to WIKI please.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Wiki should absolutely be allowed as a source. Especially when compared to a lot of the sources I see being used. Sites that pretty much ANYONE and their mom can sign up and write an article, and no one fact checks it.

Seriously, I don't trust any news source anymore - and I'm finding it more and more difficult to care.

2+2 is still 4 right? thats all I need to know.
Source: math.com



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Yes- Wiki is ok. So are "Trolls". And "Ubber-doodles" and "Puffing Dragons" and "Barking Stones". It's all the same isn't it? Who knows for sure? The Shadow !

edit on 29-5-2011 by CosmosKid because: spelling



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
This whole thread is stupid.

Wiki is an encyclopedia. It is not really a source, it links to sources.

To be against bringing up wiki on this board is mind bogglingly dumb. So a source is ok until wiki links to it? Ridiculous.

Banning wiki would not allow you to turn your brain off, secure in the knowledge that you can just avoid thinking and trust everything everybody else posts.

Nor does simply linking to wiki mean anything in a debate.

If you can't debate the content of the source you link to, you have no business participating in the debate you've gotten yourself into. You are in over your head. In that case...if you want to deny ignorance...instead of trying to tell people what's what when you don't know, how about you ask questions or stfu?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Yes as a source.

2nd



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Serafine
 

I,Think it should be allowed.But we still need to check everything out for truth and facts.I,feel there is a lot of important issues we may of never would of known.But at the same time,a lot of it should be confidently to protect AMERICA. Thank you for listening,have a good memorial weekend.I,salute all soldiers,thank you for protecting us and standing up for AMERICA! Also thank you all that gave your life's for us all. Thank you MOM AND DAD'S FOR LOANING YOUR CHILDREN TO PROTECT US ALL.May God keep them safe and bring them all home. In Jesus name amen



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I find it odd that Wikipedia, a source which can be 'democratically edited' by anyone, is subject to a popularity poll on ATS to "determine" (not really) whether it can be used as a source on ATS. The reason anyone doesn't like it is because anyone can edit it.



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by OverMan
 


Originally posted by OverMan
wiki yes

Death to tyranny!

It is just a reference!

"Whom controls the past controls the present controls the future" now what about this quote do you not understand as it applies to all sources information?

Lotta talk of BANNING and other Tyranical nonsense = I am about to delete my account and I just got here!


"...what about this quote..."? I wonder where you got that "Whom controls..." quote. Was it from Wikipedia? Who is it quoting?

Now a man named Eric Blair, ( also known as ) George Orwell wrote something like that in his book 1984.

"Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'
~ George Orwell

Notice the difference between these two "Quotes"? If you were meaning to quote Orwell from the 1984 book... it's an error. Somewhere along the lines translation got some jam on it... Then again, you might be quoting someone else... Is this someone else paraphrasing Orwell? Are you quoting yourself? Did you write that?

This illustrates this thread as well as anything... Claiming "Wikipedia" has sources is just as this post is contending with.... EVEN sources for what's published on Wikipedia is subject to the person paraphrasing the source and often giving the impression of a valid replication of the source or material, or even a "Quote", as in a direct quote. Most of which are not quotes, but "rephrasing" publications in Wikipedia using myriad "sources" and not direct quotes.

So if the "Whom controls..." quote is from Orwell..... I will give you a primary source for Orwell and can validate and verify... this real QUOTE.... In Fact here is a link to the book

Link ---> The Complete Works of George-Orwell
look at chapter 3


The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.


*******
OverMan do NOT delete your account here! lol.... geeeesh!



I will dive in deeper with you.

I was quoting Rage against the Machine who was paraphrasing Orwell


Yet ultimately the concept that history is written by the victors and thus the thought that no one studies history, no one truly knows history but their current "controllers" version of history, is a valid observation today as it was yesterday as it will be tomorrow making the true source about as relevant as the name of the person who wrote the first recipe for chicken soup.

Whom controls the past = Who decides what history to include, exclude in our history books and who decides what to play on the history channel and what is mentioned and what is left out on MSM news etc etc...
Whom controls the present = the same people who control the past
Whom controls the future = will be the same people who control both the past and present via controlling our collective mindsets by what we are taught in school and by the collective mass media hollywood et al.

I check references in many ways, one of them is to see if they ignore or how they handle sensitive issues.
One of these issues is the Holodomor?

Ever hear of it?

wiki knows Holodomor

and if you have never heard about this then I suggest that you should now wonder why...
I could try being naive by asking if you have ever heard of the Holocaust...


Bottom line, your source, my source all can be and probably are slightly if not completely infiltrated and subverted by whatever power believes it has an interest in doing so and is constantly under seige by minor factions trying to put their "spin" on things and None of them have to be correct = all of them might be wrong and/or manipulating whatever version of the truth that is currently accepted by the majority or a persuasive minority etc etc.

Ban wiki? whats next?
Let me guess, we shall now embrace Websters or no no, Funk and Wagnals, right?

I have copies of dictionaries and encyclopedias that are in some cases 125+ years old and let me tell ya partner, the words and their associated definitions....they be a changin'...

Okay, now I will post the video and its your turn




"The movie ran through me
The glamour subdue me
The tabloid untie me
I'm empty please fill me
Mister anchor assure me
That Baghdad is burning
Your voice it is so soothing
That cunning mantra of killing
I need you my witness
To dress this up so bloodless
To numb me and purge me now
Of thoughts of blaming you
Yes the car is our wheelchair
My witness your coughing
Oily silence mocks the legless
Ones who travel now in coffins
On the corner
The jury's sleepless
We found your weakness
And it's right outside our door
Now testify

Now testify
It's right outside our door
Now testify
Yes testify
It's right outside our door

With precision you feed me
My witness I'm hungry
Your temple it calms me
So I can carry on
My slaving sweating the skin right off my bones
On a bed of fire I'm choking on the smoke that fills my home
The wrecking ball rushing
Witness your blushing
The pipeline is gushing
While here we lie in tombs
While on the corner
The jury's sleepless
We found your weakness
And it's right outside your door
Now testify
Yeah testify
It's right outside our door
Now testify
Now testify
It's right outside our door

Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set
Mass graves for the pump and the price is set

Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now controls the past
Who controls the past now controls the future
Who controls the present now?

Now testify
Testify
It's right outside our door
Now testify
Testify
It's right outside our door"

Lyrics by Rage against the machine whilst part of these lyrics are paraphrased from Eric Blair aka George Orwell who now appears to be an agent of the Elite as his works were "prophetic" in that their purpose was to desensitize us to the "Brave new world" that was coming.
Bands like RATM like to include such references in a simple acknowledgement to those who have ears that they are not simply a rock band full of under and un educated drug addicts for no purpose other then to gain wealth.

Now Testify!



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
yes



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   



Hell make a new one, called "Unsourced."

Bam, problem solved.

P.S.

I'm actually quite puzzled there is no "Unsourced" forum already... surely I can't be the first person to think of it... no?


Actually, I completely agree with you on this. I think an "Unsourced" forum would exactly suit the need.

Apologies for not replying sooner. BT




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join